Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
The US started attacking Iran right as Trump arrived in Turkey today. What happens if Iran targets Turkey because Trump is there? Is Trump trying to pull Turkey, NATO’s second-strongest military, into a war against Iran? Also, is it really a smart move for Trump to do this while being so close to Iran?
Trump has been paying 3D chess this whole time. He is juggling the military, the economy, public sentiment and public safety. He has started calling out NATO for bailing on the US, meanwhile Iran had continued to bomb ships in the Strait of Houmuz in violation of th cease fire.
I think eventually Iran will cross the line and will be destroyed and the US will end up rebuilding the country and installing a democratic government while American oil companies rebuild their energy infrastructure.
@exitseven
Its not bailing when your buddy never agreed to wrestle the pig in mud with you and you told him that you don't need his help anyway after demanding that you get to have his dog.
NATO is a *defense* alliance, Sherlock! They are not some ragtag soldiery you call in when your dumb wargames go awry.
@DryGermanGuy Trump requested their assistance through a couple of ways, which are reasonable. 1. Access to US bases, which was sometimes denied, even the airspace. 2. For Europe to aid in escorts, in which the Hormuz is more significant to them than the US. There were general dismissals and agreements (such as Italy), yet nothing came of it. This was a politically unwise decision on the part of Europe. They depend heavily on US security, contracts, and even their logistics and material do not work without US involvement. From a European standpoint it's understandable, they have many disagreements with Trump (his attacks on NATO for example), and their fear of oil disruptions. However, the US has never denied help in the past (from what I can remember), outside of the Trump administration punishing NATO nations for lazing off.
@exitseven
USA&Israel carried out a first strike against Iran, not the other way around.
Now Israel did get attacked by Iran before but Israel isn't part of NATO.
Also its worth noting that Turkey isn't getting scolded for not intervening despite of sharing a land border.
Roosevelt would have begun putting together a alliance last summer at least.
@DryGermanGuy I also wanted to add the nightmare Europe will be in. NATO largely agreed to the 5% funding by 2035 (Spain opted out). This is good, and proves to the US it can step back. However, it has many significant problems. NATO has a lot of inoperable systems and differing mechanical standards. They also lack a lot of significant abilities that are supplied by the US (like deep strike or logistical abilities). It's viewed largely as a paper tiger that couldn't fight in a real war without significant support. The UK, for example, has more admirals than ships, with most of its ships in drydock. France has an aircraft carrier but can't use it without US escort. The list is endless. To fix this problem, it's estimated Europe would need a immediate boost of $270 billion a year, and many 100a of thousands more forces. NATO also lacks a command structure, due to most of it being owned by the US. It's possible, but will take Europe many years to be self dependent to a degree to deter a force like Russia.
@Pohjolan to further discuss your claim. Iran has used its proxies to attack enemies for nearly 50 years. We can go back to the 1983 Beirut bombings, if you want? It has also attacked the strait of hormuz many times, including the tanker war of the 1980s, and various tankers from 2019 to 2025. It has also orchestrated numerous assassinations and kidnappings. at least 1,000 Americans have died from Iranian backing. This ignore neighboring nations, where its inflicted far more. Israel was attacked on Oct 7th, which killed 1,200, including 48 Americans. This list is endless if you want it. This didn't start months ago.
@FrodoSkywalker007
Usualy through proxies however. Iran attacked Israel directly April 13 2024 so there is some casus belli.
However again euros&Turkey are not obligated to defend Israel.
@Pohjolan that is because Iran lacks the military abilities to directly confront others. It fought a 8 year long stalemate with Iraq in the 1980s, and suffered more casualties. It relies on proxies for outward efforts. Hezbollah for example, is essentially the IRGC of Lebanon, and houses many of its commanders. In that case, the people don't even support them and the Lebanese government lacks the ability to fight them. I don't think our friend here means Israel, but instead the US and NATO alliance. Let's also not forget that NATO targets were attacked in this conflict.
@FrodoSkywalker007 Trump has given Iran enough rope and they have hung themselves with it. Thr US attacks have been started and iran will not be able to sell its oil. The US has resumed the blockade and they are patroling the strait of Hoemuz to keep Iran at bay. They really have no cards left to play
@exitseven I agree completely. The MOU was way too generous to Iran. Yet they still wouldn't accept that. My opinion from the beginning is that it was largely a delay tactics for midterms, or a proof to the public that the regime is unreasonable. If the MOU went through as it stands I'd be very worried. I do agree Iran more or less offed itself (assuming strikes continue, and Trump stops the pointless diplomacy). This all depends on Trump recognizing what needs to be done.
@FrodoSkywalker007
"It's possible, but will take Europe many years to be self dependent to a degree to deter a force like Russia."
If you have failed to notice orcistan is facing its own challenges as well like a worsening fuel shortage.
Sure Putler might still invade due to being surrounded by yes men but chances are it would end badly for them even without US.
NATO could have gotten more involved yes but is not obligated to as for USA this is or at least was a war of choice.
There was a window of opportunity to get more countries involved now that Iran struck down the olive branch being offered but Mr. Cheetos couldn't keep his mouth shut about annexing Greenland. GJ.
@Pohjolan I agree Trump has hurt relations with Europe, regardless if his reasons are justified. I've mentioned this before on this website. However, Europe simply isn't able to wage war against Russia. Yes, Russian has shown significant weakness against Ukraine, but a large portion of that is due to the US. Remove the US from the equation, and Europe would have a monumental struggle.
@FrodoSkywalker007
"However, Europe simply isn't able to wage war against Russia."
You are wrong like the naval blockade alone would be devastating to their economy.
@Pohjolan
The Shocking State of Britain's Navy 2026 / Mark Felton Productions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gru2EDJvj9Q this is what I mean. Europe has decimated it military capacity due to relying on the US. The UK once had the most powerful navy on the planet.
@FrodoSkywalker007
Wrong on all accounts - the United States plays no role anymore in supporting Ukraine for the last 18 months, apart from selling (or not selling) Patriot rockets and ammunition. Europe has taken over all major support deliveries and Ukraine has built-up a sizeable domestic defense industry, especially for rockets, cruise missiles and drones. Which, of course is already competing with American manufacturers (see deals in Middle East), something the American MIC is going to regret massively.
@FrodoSkywalker007
You know UK has two operational carriers while orcistan has none nor is UK the only country with a navy in Europe.
Russia is already on a backfoot in the Black Sea, the Baltic sea is basically a NATO lake and no way orcistan could escort convoys through the GIUK gap.
The pacific theatre would be the only area where euro subs would really have to go after red shipping and the east-west capacity of railway would limit anyway how useful that is.
@DryGermanGuy yes, you are correct, which goes back to my NATO discussion of earlier.
@DryGermanGuy once again, my argument that Europe lacks the ability to fight a war effectively with Russia. Most nations have hollowed out militaries, and there is a lack of unity on materials and logistics. Much of that network has depended on the US. We can speak about US distancing itself from NATO, which is already talked about. Also, I mentioned earlier the increases on NATO spending. I haven't denied any of this. You are attempting to misconstrue my words because of your poor attempts at previous conversations with me.
@FrodoSkywalker007
No one is "misconstruing your words", you are just in over your head with complex topics and can't discern between your fantasies ("Regime change in Iran!", "Russia can defeat Europe!") and the big real-world political pictures. Fact is that there is no regime change in Iran coming any time soon and Russia - absent a full mobilization - has no chance of winning against Ukraine, much less a combined European army with 2,5 million men. We are quite safe for the foreseeable future.
@DryGermanGuy
Look firstly its been established that Felton is another clickbait producer and not a reliable source. I'm not going to give that guy more traffic.
Secondly you have to take into account their subs, air force, navies of other countries and air forces of other countries.
No the blockade would hold.
You are lying omissions by excluding certain factors like the amount of fortifications constructed in russias neighbouring countries or anti-submarine sensors stationed on the sea floor.
@DryGermanGuy once again, you speak nonsense. No one here is denying Trump polices (I've been critical of them in this very post). However, you are attempting to conflating my words again. In the past the US, largely shipped its own stockpiles, and in overall funding equalled that of all of Europe. Currently, through PURL, Europe purchases US manufactured weapons foe Ukraine www.cfr.org/articles/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine www.kielinstitut.de/.../
@Pohjolan once again, there are few militaries in Europe that even meet minimal standards. If we remove US influence, much of its infrastructure falls apart. Do you understand war takes more than manpower? Logistics is the main problem here, and a lack of unified materials. Most European nations still depend upon US defense contracts and industry
@Pohjolan @DryGermanGuy These aren't delusions, but recognized by NATO leadership. www.politico.eu/.../ Europe depends heavily on US support. There have been great strides, but it may not be in time www.europarl.europa.eu/.../...I(2025)777967_EN.pdf www.theguardian.com/.../visual-guide-can-europe-really-defend-itself-alone www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/.../europes-defence-reliance-on-the-us-runs-deeper-than-hardware
@Pohjolan the US makes up 60% of NATO defense spending, over 58% or arms imports. It relies heavily on the US for logistics, C&C, intelligence, nuclear umbrella, aircraft, air defense etc.
There is no denying, the US removing itself also has pitfalls for itself. Its why I don't support The decision. I agree, NATO has always depended on the US, and many member states have rarely met minimum requirements. However, Trump has been largely negative in this and would hurt the US economy and security. www.defensenews.com/.../ www.bruegel.org/.../PB%2027_6.pdf
@Pohjolan furthermore, you may hate the source because of your political stance. However, the UK naval collapse is accepted by CEPA cepa.org/.../ the issue here is European elitism and unwillingness to see real problems. You speak of Americans being ignorant or unwilling to accept reality, look at yourselves.
@Pohjolan furthermore, I should mention again this is not attacking the admirable attempts by NATO yo be self sufficient. The issue is how long it will take, if the US removes itself. We are speaking about 8 decades or reliance. We are speaking about 1 trillion $ cost according to IISS. Mark Rutte speaks about the unrealistic expectations of NATO to fight a war alone. At best, according to the Atlas Institute (based on London), we are looking at a decade, if the US plays a smaller role. We are looking far longer if the US is removed from the equation. It's nearly impossible with the current system. I have no idea why Europeans are so elitist and blind to this reality. Your leadership surely recognizes it. atlasinstitute.org/.../
@DryGermanGuy I wanted to add something else I believe you are ignoring. There is no doubt Europe as a whole has delivered significant amounts of equipment to Ukraine. However, large chunks of equipment sent directly from NATO states to Ukraine is American made. For example, F16s, or M247. Even Patriots from Germany were sent in previous packages. Yes, plenty of European made equipment is sent as well. Also, decent chunks of the Ukraine arms industries rely on US cooperation, such as the patriot system. Most significant systems are American made, and are things Europe is incapable of making. Further proving my point www.pbs.org/.../nato-coordinating-regular-deliveries-of-large-scale-weapon-packages-to-ukraine
@FrodoSkywalker007
Wait your argument is that Europe won't win a war against Russia because USA won't supply spare parts for US made equipment in a war because reasons?
Also you asking how they'd enforce a naval blockade shows that you are either uniformed or intentionally missleading.
No commercial vessel survives a anti-ship missile nor torpedo.
@Pohjolan My argument is that Europe lacks the ability to wage war to any significant degree without US support. This is admitted by the Secretary General of NATO, as I supplied to you. To commit to a blockade requires massive logistics and capacity. For example, the UK navy admits itself that it couldn't carry out a naval campaign like it did in the Falklands. At best, it would have to remove forces from all other commitments (which it has over a dozen such commitments). It's not feasible. Europe is much weaker now, than it was in the 1980s, and it still required US support then.
@Pohjolan I'll supply this stratnewsglobal.com/.../ its a general summary of the IISS report. It's not very likely Europe as a whole would be able to replace US muscle. It has a very long way to go to do that. This also includes naval realities as well. Europeans have lived off the US for several generations and likely don't have the will or unity.
@Pohjolan www.politico.eu/.../ as I stated (and supplied before), the Secretary General of NATO admits they are incapable of fighting war without US assistance
@FrodoSkywalker007
Rutte is well known for brown nosing Mr Cheetos and I don't think his defeatism is grounded in reality.
Again how are you planning to get those ships past the GSL and GIUK gaps and again back the same way they came?
They can't just leave those ships unescorted for the rest of the journey or any frigate could wipe them out.
@FrodoSkywalker007
You are confident that orcistan could run the blockade so do tell how they would do it?
@Pohjolan furthermore, I don't really see your point. You largely ignore everything I send. Yet you obsess over waterways that we would hope the UK other nations can manage, for its regional. Yet that is no guarantee for success (which I've also supplied a source to), the UK wasn't even able to manage a Russian sub in its own region. The real question is how will you manage overseas bases? The UK couldn't defend Cyprus, and can't manage a Falklands campaign without pulling from all commitments.
@Pohjolan cepa.org/.../ you are incapable of defending overseas bases. It's an issue. Your regional defense depends on US systems. It will take 25 years, $1 trillion, and unity to have a chance atlasinstitute.org/.../
@FrodoSkywalker007
In wartime a orc sub can be engaged without a fuss. At that point its no longer a escalation.
"Yet that is no guarantee for success"
Not a guarantee but one only has to look at orcistans imports&exports and railway capacity to see how tankers or ships loaded with ammunition intended for the frontline getting sunk instead would be kind of a issue.
Again: You are confident that orcistan could run the blockade so do tell how they would do it?
We can start talking air war after the naval part.
@FrodoSkywalker007
Are you sharing your account or do you post whatever Chatgtp comes up with without reading it first?
To quote: ". To commit to a blockade requires massive logistics and capacity. For example, the UK navy admits itself that it couldn't carry out a naval campaign like it did in the Falklands. At best, it would have to remove forces from all other commitments (which it has over a dozen such commitments). It's not feasible. Europe is much weaker now, than it was in the 1980s, and it still required US support then."
Its has very much to do with the conversation. You harp about logistics as if Europe didn't have trains and a network of tarmac roads yet downplay strangling the main logistics routes of the enemy.
@Pohjolan Exactly, and this is a reply to you, and not my central argument. As stated, it's acknowledged by European internal sources that they lack the ability to defeat a major Russian attack without significant US aid. The committees.parliament.uk/.../
@Pohjolan as stated before, the UK naval lacks the ability to defend its assets. This has been covered before. www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/.../europes-defence-reliance-on-the-us-runs-deeper-than-hardware
The Shocking State of Britain's Navy 2026 / Mark Felton Productions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gru2EDJvj9Q You are poorly attempting to rehash topics.
@FrodoSkywalker007
"Exactly, and this is a reply to you, and not my central argument."
Yet is a argument that you are making and denied making.
Again: You are confident that orcistan could run the blockade so do tell how they would do it?
Either admit being wrong or explain your war gaming.
@Pohjolan as stated before, NATO lacks the logistical ability to effectively fight Russia without US support. This is openly admitted and documented by European leaders and think tanks themselves. europeanconservative.com/.../ my.rusi.org/.../...g-alliance-vulnerabilities.html 9https://nationalinterest. org/blog/buzz/does-europe-want-war-with-russia-without-enough-logistics-planes-bw-100525 The issue is denial, and you assuming repeating the same question means anything. This comes from your own governments. Playing out some sort of theoretical war game means little. Russia would just nuke you. The end? What I am speaking about is significant internal deficits in logistics, supplies, unity
Etc
nationalinterest.org/.../does-europe-want-war-with-russia-without-enough-logistics-planes-bw-100525 sorry that last link didn't send right.
@FrodoSkywalker007
Before we discuss logistics more in detail:
Again: You are confident that orcistan could run the blockade so do tell how they would do it?
Irradiating the area you are trying to conquer kind of makes a invasion a moot point plus UK&France have nukes.
Also mind telling what happened to MH17?
@Pohjolan sorry friend but this is a pointless conversation. You ignore my arguments and have obsessed almost specifically on a blockade (which I already provided a source, which shows NATO reliance on US logistics to make any longterm maritime operation possible). You ignored most of my links that were internal memo, think tanks, and leaders that have spoke of NATO limits. You further denied sources on political grounds, even though they are public records. Then you desire to war game "what if" scenarios, that we both know are difficult to judge (the reality of war). You continue to ask the same question, regardless if it's central to my argument or not. You instead bought up the blockade issue (not me), and I provided internal research that showed the difficulty enforcing one without US support. Then continued to ignore nearly all of my replies.
@FrodoSkywalker007
Some article written by a journalist isn't the same as a reliable study and you have not.
"Asking the same question over again is quite pathetic."
It is not if you refuse to answer.
Again: You are confident that orcistan could run the blockade so do tell how they would do it?
Also what happened to MH17?
@FrodoSkywalker007
What happened to MH17?
(which I already provided a source, which shows NATO reliance on US logistics to make any longterm maritime operation possible)
UK not being able to do another Falkands like campaign is very different from a scenario where jets of various countries can take off from air bases to engage enemy ships that do not have fighter cover of their own.
@Pohjolan the reality is i know your type. We have plenty in the US. You are elitist, and will ignore anything that goes against your worldview. Even when supplied with evidence of the shortcomings, you will ask it over and over again because you have too much pride. It's the type that wastes time, and looks at victory as the last word. Good luck with that.
@Pohjolan since you continue down this pointless road. I'm going to stop the contact. I've provided what you asked. Do with them what you will. The circular questioning does not aid in this conversation. At this point it becomes a waste of time. Regardless of answer, you will continue. Have a good night. ☺
@FrodoSkywalker007
I do not care about your feelings nor what you think of me. To me you are just another anon on the internet who might be a AI or trollfarm bot for all I know.
What happened. to MH17 and how would orcistan run the blockade?
@FrodoSkywalker007
Ukraine has struck 48 ships in the last 12 days. Care to explain how they would be more protected sailing in the Atlantic from anti-ship missiles and torpedoes than from sea drones close to their shoreline?
@FrodoSkywalker007
22 vessels today and its just half past noon.
If Russia could protect its vessels from euros in the Atlantic then why won't they protect their ships in the Black Sea from Ukraine?
Hmmm?
People attribute Trump with untelligence he doesn't possess, certainly not at this point. Did you see the footage of his arrival in Turkey? Erdogan had to keep grabbing Trumps elbow to keep him on track walking off the tarmac. It's just as likely Hegseth did it without approval because he hasn't played "army men" in a while and it makes him feel like a "big boy".
Because his Masters want him to keep war going so they can kill more.
No they want him to keep it going so they can continue to manipulate the oil market and other markets and continue to make huge amounts of money. And of course he's going to keep it going because he too is making huge amounts of money from this. Too bad for you if you have to buy gas.
Opinion
15Opinion
Iran won’t attack Turkey so don’t be silly. Turkey is powerful and it would trigger Article 5 of Nato. Trump attacked Iran because they tried to kill US troops recently. When a country does that they get attacked. If they kill Trump it will also trigger Article 5 but the US response will be brutal and that won’t matter that much.
You think Trump has a plan? XD Every president knew starting this war would end in disaster. Trump started this war because he thought it would be an easy win but he's getting humiliated.
The plan is to keep the war going as long as possible.
US companies are making a killing.
Remember the US doesn't need anything from the region while Europe, china, korea and japan do.
America has no allies just special intrests.
Also France is NATOs strongest military. Followed by Britain, italy, spain and Poland.
Your types will never understand the level difference between the US and IRAN.
Trump could attack them while standing in a chicken suit on a barge in hormuz and they wouldn’t stand a chance at getting close to him
news now in picture
is his plan.
i don't think the turkish people would like that and they don't support israel enough to fight for them against iran. i don't think iran would fire on them. i thought the meetings were in armenia?
He needs to learn that negotiating is pointless. Israel was correct the only way is the removal of the regime. They are terrorists and have been the leading cause of issues in the region for nearly 50 years.
@msc545 😂 😂 blocked me? Good choice.
😂 😂 blocked me? Good choice.
@msc545 😂 you mean facts hurt your feelings. You can block me again 😂
@msc545 😂 😂 😂
tRump's plan? McDonald's chicken nuggets and diet Coke for lunch tomorrow. There is no plan beyond that.
u A plan? These poor dumb fucks are making one up on the go. Stable genius, remember?
Trump's plan is to make it through the day on fewer than three diaper changes. That's about it.
@loveslongnails wow
@FrodoSkywalker007 Did you know there are reliable reports from inside the White House that there are signs posted telling him which direction to turn to get from point A to point B? Look it up. LOL
Interesting.
Nothing Trump does is smart. It never has been, and it never will be.
What's the Mullahs plan though? Its hard to see how they could have gotten a even better deal.
Its not a given that US negotations will be led by a home rooskie in the future.
Maybe you prefer it this way. Have you met @FunkyMonkee?
To get his way.
Who knows what's in Agent Orange's mind?
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
You can also add your opinion below!
